The ACLU of Rhode Island opposes bans on “sexual orientation change efforts” because they pose a “danger to First Amendment rights” and have “potential unintended consequences.”

The ACLU of Rhode Island points out, a full panel of a federal appellate court said there were “serious doubts” that the California conversion therapy decision was correct, noting that “characterizing speech as conduct is a dubious constitutional enterprise.” Therapy bans do “pose a danger to First Amendment rights.”

The practices that a therapy ban bars are “quite broad,” including “helping individuals who seek to resist acting on same-sex attractions for reasons such as a desire to maintain a marriage or to enter the seminary.”

A ban sets the precedent for banning ANY controversial medical treatment. “For example, there has been some controversy as of late – within the medical profession itself – with respect to transition-related healthcare for young transgender people, such as early intervention with hormone therapy. Such medical treatment could be just as subject to legislative intrusion and decision-making based on the principles underlying this bill.”

The ACLU of Rhode Island says only licensing boards can handle any problems competently and avert unintended consequences.[2]

Examples of unintended consequences of therapy bans to adults and minors:

If a middle-aged, 40 year old mother of 3 says to a therapist, “I love my husband and children, but recently I have felt attracted to someone else in my church. Please help me decrease my desires for the other person,” and if the other person is a man, the therapist can help her. But if the other person is a woman, the therapist has to refuse treatment or be criminalized. Some bisexual adolescents aspire to a faithful heterosexual relationship with children one day and want therapy to feel assured they can live the life they choose. Bans refuse them their rights.

A priest with same-sex desires could not get help to fulfill his priestly call to chastity. A young man could not get the same help to enable him to enter the seminary. Some adolescents and adults want help to be celibate and have healthy friendships in order to live according to their religious faith. Under a ban, the government decides for them what goals they may have for their own life and therapy.

Therapy bans require a therapist to discriminate based on sexual orientation. For example, effects of childhood sexual abuse can be treated if they are heterosexual, but not if they are homosexual.

The American Psychological Association says in its APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology, which it has declared “authoritative,”[3] that sexual and gender variations are not simply biologically caused. There are psychological causes[4] including childhood sexual abuse for some individuals.[5] One effect of childhood sexual abuse may be that the victim begins to experience same-sex attractions or behaviors. Is it more compassionate to help relieve these feelings or behaviors or to tell victims they have to live with them? A therapy ban requires the therapist to deny treatment to relieve the victim’s unwanted attractions and behaviors or the therapist will be criminalized.

More symptoms and recognized psychological disorders[6] that may result from sexual abuse can be treated only if they are heterosexual,[7] requiring discrimination based on sexual orientation.

They include: unwanted emotional and sexual ties to a sexual abuser, desire to have sex with minors, compulsive sexual thoughts, pornography addiction, sexual addictions, and more.Example: a therapist could help a man who is attracted to 5 year old girls but not 5 year old boys. If a client might engage in illegal sexual behavior toward the same sex, the therapist could merely address illegal behavior but not treat the desire to engage in the behavior. This is dangerous. A ban compels the therapist to violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment by prohibiting a therapist from offering services to LGB individuals that he offers to heterosexual clients. In this sense, the legislation demands discrimination based on sexual orientation.[8]

Gender dysphoric children and adolescents are legislated onto a path of:

experimental puberty blockers, toxic hormones that often sterilize them for life,[9] having their breasts surgically removed, potential castration, a lifetime of being a medical patient,[10] a 4.5 times higher rate of psychiatric hospitalizations persisting after sex change, and a 19 times higher rate of completed suicides after sex change even if they live in a liberal and affirming community,[11] all with the assumption minors are competent to choose these treatments, and all before they are old enough to drive—yet forbids them talk therapy to help them embrace their body.

The short and long-term risks of transitioning are sobering; hardly a cure for suicide.

Lack of proven safety or long term benefit for minors. It’s not pro-science—it’s no science.[12]

After short term satisfaction, regret and de-transitioning are not rare, but what’s gone is gone.[13]

WPATH: gender incongruence may be “better accounted for by other diagnoses.”[15] Psychotherapy may change gender identity and spares bodily harm. Bans forbid it.

Bans hide that same-sex attraction and gender variant feelings, unlike skin color, are not simply biologically caused and carry a high probability to decrease or change if allowed to.

As many as 98% of boys and 88% of girls[16] and no less than 75% of gender dysphoric boys and girls will come to embrace their body if getting therapy for individual problems and not socially transitioned to live as the opposite sex.[17]

Agrees with even the SPLC (2016)[21] that contemporary change-allowing therapy does not use aversive or other behavioral methods that were mainstream but ineffective and practiced in early years—before cell phones and the commercial internet.[22]Organizational position papers frequently misrepresent those early methods as defining change-allowing therapy today, showing they lack basic knowledge about the therapy on which they are taking a position.

Found “no valid causal evidence” of harm[23] from change-allowing therapy, has not declared it unethical.

Could not conclude whether either LGB-affirmative therapy[24]or change-allowing therapy[25] was effective or safe. Recent reviews find LGBT-affirmative therapy still has many limitations.[26]

Formed “tentative”[27] conclusions based on “anecdotal evidence” and 2 invalid scientific “keys” or “findings”[28] that were corrected by the 2014 APA Handbook. Handbook corrections:

(1) Rigorous research now shows sexual attraction does indeed change for many;[29]

(2) Childhood sexual abuse trauma can lead to same-sex attraction and behavior.[30]The APA Handbook is now not consistent in the view that same-sex sexuality is invariably normal and can never be caused by trauma. Trauma is cause for treatment, and we have evidence-based treatments for trauma. The Task Force had relied on research that did not meet its own standards.

Professional organization position statements often misrepresent the Task Force findings, are based on the same errors, and are not scientific evidence; they are opinion based on political activism within these guilds. Several professional organizations oppose bans.[31]

One of the APA Task Force authors, Dr. Lee Beckstead, and a group of LGBT mental health professionals (the Reconciliation and Growth Project) want to promote ethical and balanced approaches to helping LGBT people in psychotherapy but never endorse any ban.[32]

Over a hundred years of research, including studies published in the American Psychological Association’s peer-reviewed journals by APA members, found that when the therapy is done right, it is effective.[34] Surveys of those who identify as LGBTQ (1) automatically exclude individuals who have safely and successfully changed and (2) often do not differentiate nonprofessional from professional services. Stories of “aversion therapy” are documented to be fraudulent in a report to the Federal Trade Commission.[35] Evidence strongly suggests representatives of the NCLR or Trevor Project, Sam Brinton and Matt Shurka, have given fraudulent testimonies.[36] Therapists in the national professional organization, Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity, follow a code of ethics and use mainstream therapy methods.[37] Our clients do not believe they were born gay. They feel life-changing events led to their variation. Our therapy does not directly seek to change sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. However, some clients do see movement along the fluidity spectrum as a byproduct of addressing wounds from their earlier traumas. We use the same evidence-based therapy methods used in clinics around the world.

Government takes away freedoms and rights and opens up unintended consequences.

Our clients have the same freedom and the right as everyone else to resolve unwanted feelings, love who they want, and choose their gender identity. No one should take that away from them.

Some want to live and love according to their religious faith. No one should deny them that right. Several professional organizations oppose bans and support a client’s right to therapy for unwanted sexual and gender variations that is in accord with their religious faith.[38]

Most people by far who experience same-sex attraction also experience equal or greater opposite sex attraction according to the APA Handbook. Rigorous research has established this is true internationally, and their sexual attraction is capable of change. They are by far the norm, and exclusively gay individuals are the minority.[39] Many are in opposite-sex relationships with children because they prefer to be. But some seek therapy to decrease same-sex desires or behavior to save their marriages and be able to continue being full-time moms and dads. Bans deprive them of help, harming them, their spouses, and their children. This is a great injustice and harm. As minors or single adults, many aspire to be in such relationships faithfully, and some want therapy to help them.

Many targeted individuals will get therapy they do not want or no professional therapy at all.

People who want change-allowing therapy would instead be coerced into therapy they do not want, LGBT-affirmative therapy or so-called neutral therapy, that offers help to clarify their sexual or gender identity self-label (in case they need that, but does not help to change behavior or desires), support to bear their continued suffering from feelings they don’t want, or body-harming treatments, but does not lift a finger to offer trauma treatments that are open to change.[40] A therapy ban strips away their rights, deprives them of the life they choose, boxes them into a hopeless situation with depression and suicidality. It is unethical for a therapist to give a type of treatment a client does not want (affirmative or “neutral”). Therapists generally will not do it.

In states that have therapy bans, many therapists are afraid, because of the law and legal counsel, to see sexual or gender variant individuals whose goal is change, so many now get no professional mental health services. Like other individuals who experience these variations, some are sexual abuse victims and are suicidal. Bans are harmful and unjust.

Support for individuals who experience sexual or gender variations is not discrimination and banning therapy for some but fostering the universal value of kindness for all.

Bans attempt to coerce compliance with an ideology about sexual orientation and gender, supposing it is needed to support all LGBT people. But Dr. Caitlyn Ryan, who researches LGBT youth and works with the National Center for Lesbian Rights, says “evangelical families can positively influence health,” and a theological shift is not necessary.[41] Viewpoint discrimination among some professional organizations is group think, not science. In law, it is unconstitutional.[42]

“This Court has never recognized ‘professional speech’ as a separate category of speech subject to different rules. Speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by professionals.”

“As defined by the courts of appeals, the professional-speech doctrine would cover a wide array of individuals—doctors, lawyers, nurses, physical therapists, truck drivers, bartenders, barbers, and many others. See Smolla, Professional Speech and the First Amendment, 119 W. Va. L. Rev. 67, 68 (2016). One court of appeals has even applied it to fortune tellers. See Moore-King, 708 F. 3d, at 569. All that is required to make something a “profession,” according to these courts, is that it involves personalized services and requires a professional license from the State. But that gives the States unfettered power to reduce a group’s First Amendment rights by simply imposing a licensing requirement. States cannot choose the protection that speech receives under the First Amendment, as that would give them a powerful tool to impose “invidious discrimination of disfavored subjects.” (p.14)

Mary McAllister of Liberty Council announced on 6/28/2018: “NIFLA v. Becerra, was an expansive gift as it rejected the court decisions in California and New Jersey that upheld the counseling bans for children, cases that CA had relied upon in passing the abortion notification bill struck down in NIFLA.” “We are working on re-opening the California and New Jersey cases to get them reversed.” “Meanwhile, the NIFLA decision also affects bans put in place in several other states. We would like to file lawsuits to overturn those bans as well….” The law firm is actively lining up plaintiffs.

[2] ACLU of Rhode Island (March 22, 2017), Why the ACLU of Rhode Island opposes conversion therapy, but also opposes legislation ban it. http://www.riaclu.org/blog/post/the-aclu-of-rhode-island-opposes-conversion-therapy. The ACLU of RI points out that the judges on a full federal appeals court [the 11th Circuit Court] “said there were ‘serious doubts’ that the California conversion therapy decision was correct, noting that ‘characterizing speech as conduct is a dubious constitutional enterprise.’”

[4] “Biological explanations, however, do not entirely explain sexual orientation. Psychoanalytic contingencies are evident as main effects or in interaction with biological factors….A joint program of research by psychoanalysts and biologically oriented scientists may prove fruitful” (Rosario & Shrimshaw, 2014, in APA Handbook, 1: 583).”The etiology of a transgender or transsexual identity remains largely unknown.… It is most likely the result of a complex interaction between biological and environmental factors.… Research on the influence of family of origin dynamics has found some support for separation anxiety among gender- nonconforming boys and psychopathology among mothers” (Bockting, 2014, in APA Handbook, 1:743.

[5] Childhood sexual abuse may lead to same-sex sexuality: “The largest reviews of the literature in this area indicated that MSM [men who have sex with men] report rates of childhood sexual abuse that are approximately three times higher than that of the general male population (Purcell, Malow, Dolezal, & Carballo-Dieguez, 2004). One of the most methodologically rigorous studies in this area used a prospective longitudinal case-control design that involved following abused and matched nonabused children into adulthood 30 years later. It found that men with documented histories of childhood sexual abuse had 6.75 times greater odds than controls of reporting ever having same-sex sexual partners (H. W. Wilson & Widom, 2010). To help control for possible confounding factors, the authors conducted post hoc analyses controlling for number of lifetime sexual partners and sex work, but the association remained. The effect in women was smaller (odds ratio 􏰀 2.11) and a statistical trend (p 􏰀 .09).” There are “associative and potentially causative links” between childhood sexual abuse and ever having a same-sex partner. (Mustanski, B., Kuper, L., and Geene, G. (2014), in APA Handbook, 1: 609-610.) See also Roberts, A., Glymour, M., & Koenen, K. (2014). Considering alternative explanations for the associations among childhood adversity, childhood abuse, and adult sexual orientation: Reply to Bailey and Bailey (2013) and Rind (2013), Archives of Sexual Behavior 43:191-196.

[15 The Standards of Care of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) says gender dysphoria can be “secondary to or better accounted for by other diagnoses.” We know some examples of psychological disorders that account for transgender identify or expression include Dissociative Identity Disorder and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. These account for some who experience transition regret or who resolve their gender distress through insight they gain from life experience or psychotherapy.

The American Psychological Association in its APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology and the “Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline” says there are psychological or environmental causes of transgenderism, and affirmative therapy may cause gender incongruence that would have resolved naturally to become permanent and may neglect problems the individual is experiencing.

research on sexual minorities has long docu- mented that many recall having undergone notable shifts in their patterns of sexual attractions, behav- iors, or identities over time

[18]Change: “…research on sexual minorities has long documented that many recall having undergone notable shifts in their patterns of sexual attractions, behaviors, or identities over time.” Diamond, L. (2014) Chapter 20: Gender and same-sex sexuality, in APA Handbook, 1: 636.

[29] Re sexual attraction change: APA Task Force (2009), p. 86. The Report stated, in its “scientific facts” that sexual attraction (“orientation”) does not change, and only “sexual identity” or “self-labeling” is “fluid” (p. 2, also pp. 10, 22, 30—footnote 19, 85). These statements no longer constitute scientifically “accurate information” that the Task Force Report calls for in its “Policy” (p. 92 and throughout the report). Reports of sexual attraction and behavior appear to be equated by the Report with mere identity or self labels, not the usual way these categories are regarded by researchers (pp. 14, 77).

[30] Re trauma as a cause of SSA: APA Task Force (2009), pp. 54-55, 63, 86. The APA Handbook (1:609-610) now is not consistent with the view that sexual orientation is invariably normal and can never be caused by trauma. It says childhood sexual abuse has “associative and potentially causal links” to ever having a same-sex partner.

[31] The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, Catholic Medical Association, Christian Medical and Dental Association, and American College of Pediatricians have signed joint statements opposing therapy bans and opposing transitioning gender dysphoric minors.

Medical Groups Support Minors’ Right to Therapy
https://www.acpeds.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/5.25.17-Joint-Therapy-letter-with-signatures.pdf

(Full Report:) Phelan, J., Whitehead, N., & Sutton, P.M. (2009), What research shows: NARTH’s response to the APA claims on homosexuality: A report of the scientific advisory committee of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. Journal of Human Sexuality, 1: 1-121.

[36] Representatives of the Treavor Project or National Center for Lesbian Rights, namely Sam Brinton and Mathew Shurka, have made claims that appear to be fraudulent. Shurka reportedly told a legislative committee he had therapy with Joseph Nicolosi, Sr., who developed Reparative TherapyTM. His son who is named after him and who now heads his father’s clinic, has found no evidence that supports his claim. He invites Mr. Shurka to subpoena his “records” to settle the matter. You can watch Sam Brinton reverse his own story here: “He Lies” (2017) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx9A7L-bpZE

[38] The following organizations support the right of clients to therapy that aligns with their religious values and beliefs: American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, American College of Pediatricians, American Association of Christian Counselors, Christian Medical and Dental Association, Catholic Medical Association, International Network of Orthodox (Jewish) Mental Health Professionals, and Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity. Collectively, these organizations comprise about 80,000 licensed mental and medical health practitioners who value the right of self-determination for clients and their families.

[39] Savin-Williams, R., Joyner, K., & Rieger, R. (2012). Prevalence and stability of self-reported sexual orientation identity during young adulthood. Most same-sex attracted are also opposite-sex attracted, and many change attraction:
“Hence, directly contrary to the conventional wisdom that individuals with exclusive same-sex attractions represent the prototypical ‘type’ of sexual-minority individual, and that those with bisexual patterns of attraction are infrequent exceptions, the opposite is true….” This pattern has been found internationally. Diamond (2014), in APA Handbook, 1: 633-634.
The “bisexual group was larger than exclusively gay and lesbian groups combined. But the largest identity group, second only to heterosexual, was ‘mostly heterosexual…larger than all the other non-heterosexual identities combined.’” Savin-Williams, R., Joyner, K., & Rieger, R. (2012). Prevalence and stability of self-reported sexual orientation identity during young adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior 41: Abstract.
“The bisexual category was the most unstable” with three quarters changing that status in 6 years (Savin-Williams et al, abstract). ‘[O]ver time, more bisexual and mostly heterosexual identified young adults of both sexes moved toward heterosexuality than toward homosexuality” (Savin-Williams et al, p. 106).
Kleinplatz & Diamond (2016), in APA Handbook, 1: 256-257. Diamond & Rosky (2016), p. 7, Table 1. Archives of Sexual Behavior 41: Abstract, p. 106. Diamond (2014), in APA Handbook, 1: 634. Kleinplatz & Diamond (2016), in APA Handbook, 1: 256-257. Diamond & Rosky (2016), p. 7, Table 1.